Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.R. GAVAI, PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, JJ.
Pradeep Kumar - Appellant
Versus
State Of Haryana - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1338 Of 2010
Decided On : 05-01-2024
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 302 read with Section 34 – Murder – Common intention – Life sentence – Circumstantial evidence – Extra judicial confession is false and unbelievable – Chance witness relied on by prosecution to prove last seen theory – Multitasking of urinating, coughing, seeing motorcycle, noting blood stains clothes and recording registration number happens simultaneously – There is no evidence as to manner in which he had recorded registration number – His version is highly improbable – Prosecution has not recovered any sharp-edged weapon – There are no eyewitnesses – There is a yawning gap between charge against appellant and evidence that prosecution has adduced – Circumstances do not establish guilt of Appellant at all – While principle applicable to circumstantial evidence requires that facts must be consistent with hypothesis of guilt of accused, in present case evidence adduced gives rise to doubts, improbabilities and inconsistencies – Prosecution has not established its case beyond reasonable doubt – Appellant is entitled to be acquitted – Judgment of conviction and sentence set aside and appellant acquitted. (Paras 17, 20, 21, 25, 27, 29, 30, 31 and 32)
Facts of the case:
Sole appellant herein was tried along with another accused for murder of one Samsher Singh and convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 for murder and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life by Trial Court. In appeal, High Court of Punjab & Haryana by Judgment impugned herein dismissed appeal and confirmed conviction and sentence.
Findings of Court:
Appellant is acquitted of all charges, and his bail bonds, if any, stand discharged.
Result : Criminal Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT :
(Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, J.)
1. The sole appellant herein was tried along with another accused for the murder of one Samsher Singh and convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 for murder and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life by the Trial Court1[The Additional Sessions Judge Kaithal in Sessions Case No. 43 of 2004 dated 31.08.2007]. In appeal, the High Court of Punjab & Haryana2[In Criminal Appeal No. 805-DB 2007 dated 05.09.2009], by the judgment impugned herein dismissed the appeal and confirmed the conviction and sentence. Thus, the present appeal.
2. The case of the prosecution is that while the Assistant Sub- Inspector Balbir Singh, later examined as PW-21 was with other police officials on duty at Deyod Kheri Village, Jind-bypass road, Kaithal, on 11.04.2004, the complainant-Sunil Kumar Bhura (later examined as PW-20) met him and got his statement (EX.PY) recorded. The statement had that he is a resident of Nehru Garden Colony, Kaithal and the deceased-Shamsher Singh is related to him, being son of his paternal aunt. PW-20 was in business of real estate and was living in Adarsh Nagar, Kaithal. The previous day, that is on 10.04.2004, when PW-20 was in the office of the deceased along with one Balwant Singh (PW-18), the deceased received a call on his mobile phone at about 9.15 PM. A little thereafter, that is about 9.30 PM, the deceased received another phone call. After conversing on the mobile phone, the deceased informed them that he has to go to Gole Market and left on his motorcycle. The complainant and Balwant Singh also left the shop of the deceased. In the morning, the deceased’s wife informed PW-20 that the deceased had not returned the previous night. On receiving the said information, PW-20 and PW-18 reached the house of the deceased and thereafter went on a search for the deceased.
3. When PW-20 got the information that a dead body was found lying, he along with PW-18 and one Mr. Naresh (PW-13) reached the spot and saw that the deceased lying there, with his throat having knotted with some cloth, and the right eye being badly injured. They also noticed some injuries on the head of the deceased. The motorcycle of the deceased was parked by the side. While Naresh and PW-18 remained at the spot, PW-20 had come to inform the police about the incident and his statement was thus recorded and read over to him by the investigating officer (PW-21) with his endorsement at Ex. PW-21/1. After the FIR was registered, PW-24 took over the investigation and recorded the statements of witnesses.
4. During the investigation, the police recorded the statement of Rajesh, later examined as PW-11 and Jogi Ram later examined as PW-12. The statement and deposition of these two persons assumed importance as their evidence was relied on by the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court.
5. The statement of Rajesh (PW-11) was that on 10.04.2004 while he was driving from Chandigarh to Hisar, about half a kilometre before Karnal bypass his vehicle got punctured. As he was changing the wheel, he saw four young people on motorcycle coming from eastern side and they had to slow down because of the Karnal bypass. At that time, he saw the accused were carrying dandas and one of the boy’s clothes were stained with blood. Being suspicious he noted the registration number of the motorcycle being HR 08 E 4962. This witness also says that he read about the murder of the deceased in the newspaper two days later, i.e. on 12.04.2004 and while he was returning back to Chandigarh on 13.04.2004, he saw a police vehicle standing at the Karnal bypass Chowk with some police officials and the accused. He stopped his vehicle and informed the police about the occurrence on 10.04.2004. The prosecution thus relied on this person in support of the case as a witness to have last seen the deceased with the accused.
6. Similarly, PW-12 made a statement to the police. His version is that he is a resident of S
Circumstantial evidence – Principle applicable to circumstantial evidence requires that facts must be consistent with hypothesis of guilt of accused.
Circumstantial evidence requires complete unbroken chain conclusively proving guilt and excluding innocence hypothesis; failure of key links like last seen, extra-judicial confession, motive, recover....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the principles of circumstantial evidence to evaluate the sufficiency of the prosecution's case and the completeness of the chai....
Circumstantial evidence must establish a continuous chain linking the accused to the crime, and mere suspicion is insufficient for conviction.
The court emphasized that circumstantial evidence must establish a complete and unbroken chain of guilt beyond reasonable doubt, particularly in capital cases.
In criminal cases based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish a complete and unbroken chain of evidence to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; reliance on circumstantial evidence requires an unbroken chain linking the accused to the crime.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
